Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A Brief Introduction to
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Contents
Introduction........................................................... ....................................3
Introduction
The values of debate are endless. If you did a random sample of the
debate alumni database, you would find a list of lawyers, congresspersons,
judges, CEO’s, businesspeople, scientists and others. Former debaters include
Bill Clinton, Malcolm X, Adam Sandler, and even Oprah Winfrey! Through
debating, students hone their writing and speaking skills to a superior level,
become a first-class researcher, and gain expert knowledge in a number of
interesting topics. Equally importantly, the debate awards students amass
make them a stronger candidate for college, and may help you earn scholarship
monies. There are over 40 colleges and universities that offer full scholarships
for debate.
There are several important features of debate that you should know:
1. The debate topic is referred to as the “resolution” and it is phrased as a
statement that one side agrees with (affirms) and one side disagrees with
Format of an LD Round
This is the affirmative’s first chance to respond to the negative’s case and
defend his/her own arguments from the negative’s objections.
They’ve only stated an opinion. But an opinion is not good enough in debate.
Debate requires substantive arguments that tell the judge why to choose one
opinion rather than another. In debate, there are three essential parts to an
argument: claim, warrant and impact. Here is what they mean:
Claim: What the argument is. This answers the “what?” question, “what
is the argument?”
Warrant: The reason the argument is true. This answers the “why?”
question, “why is this true?”
Impact: The reason the argument matters in the round. This answers the
“so what?” question, “so what if the argument is true?” or “why does it
matter that the argument is true?”
Each portion of the argument is absolutely essential and cannot be
eliminated. If no warrant is provided, the argument is unsubstantiated. If no
impact is given, then the argument has no relation to the round. By telling the
judge your argument, why it’s true and why it matters, a debater provides a
well-structured argument that supports their position in the round. Here is an
example of a well-developed argument:
Now that you know how to make an argument, you may wonder, how do
you effectively refute an argument? Here are 6 ways to refute an
argument:
1. Deny the validity of the warrant: Argue that their argument is not true
for X reason.
In debate, you’ll be debating larger issues than just fast food: the issues
you’ll be debating often question things like what makes a government
legitimate. Because of that, examples of standards commonly used in LD
include “maximizing social welfare”, “protecting individual rights” and
“minimizing discrimination”. Standards are commonly an action of some kind
because it’s doing something whereas a thing is not something one is able to
achieve by affirming or negating. Here is an example for the topic
“Resolved: oppressive government is more desirable than no
government.”
1. Standard: Protecting individual rights
2. Arguments that meet the standard:
In LD, debaters do not just say they have a standard, though. The
standard is presented in two parts: the value and criterion. The first
step is to give a “value”. Since LD is a values-based debate, the purpose of
giving a value is to have a principle goal the debater wants to achieve. Values
are generally good things that no one would say is bad such as “justice”, “social
welfare” or “democratic ideals”. The value is usually prescribed by the
resolution (e.g. if the resolution is R: a just government should provide health
care to its citizens, then the likely value would be “justice” or “a just
government.”). The second step is to give a “criterion” to achieve the value.
The criterion is generally the same thing as the standard because it is
the means of achieving the overarching value in the round. The important
thing to note is that every argument you make in your case for the judge to
affirm/negate the resolution must impact to the standard.
Lost yet? Don’t worry. Understanding how the standard functions in
debate is like riding a bike: it may take practice, but once you get it, you’ve got
it!
How to Cross-Examine
How to Flow
Flowing is simply the process of taking short-hand notes, for the purpose
of keeping track of arguments in the round. Flowing is probably the most
difficult skill to master when you are beginning debate, but once you get it, you
never quite forget how to do it. This isn’t an easy task as a debater because
while taking notes, you will also be listening to the your opponent, thinking up
responses, and generally thinking about the round.
So, how does one begin flowing? Well, as soon as your opponent starts
reading their case, you should start flowing. This means that you should be
taking notes of their case in a vertical, column format. To do this, on two
pieces of paper, turn your paper vertically and divide it into five
columns. Label them with the speeches at the top (AC, 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, 2AR; for
the other side NC, 1AR, 2NR, 2AR) and make sure you are clear as to what is a
column and what it is for. Throughout the round, you need to be trying to write
arguments in each column. These arguments should be next to one another so
that they can be directly compared (i.e. the responses to the AC should be next
to it!). You should try to segment your flow of their case properly; if you
opponent says that he or she has two contentions and two sub points, that’s
what your flow should reflect as well. (Look for a sample flow in Appendix B if
you are unsure about the orientation of your flow. This is a sample flow of a
debate round held at the Philadelphia Debate Institute and is a good example of
what a well-written flow should look like.)
As the round progresses, you should be flowing the debate. You should
use two sheets of paper, and two different colored pens (one color for
aff, one color for neg). One sheet should have the AC, the NC responses to
the AC (in the column next to the AC), the 1AR extensions from the 1AC (next to
the NC), the 2NR (next to the 1AR), and the 2AR (next to the 2NR). On the other
sheet, you will have the same thing, but for the NC. Eventually, when you get
better at flowing, you won’t need to divide your paper, and you will naturally be
able to write in the column format.
Once you have the basics down, you should use short cuts to write
more, faster. One tip is to abbreviate words. For example, if their value is
justice, you can write “V: J”. As well, you should create symbols for the words
that are very common. You should also try to cut vowels out of words when you
flow them to make it faster. For example, “rights” should be “rgts” or even just
an R in a circle. Any symbol you can create that will save you time when writing
is a good symbol.
Your flows will probably never be perfect, but you should always keep
trying to make them better. There are videos posted online of high level debates
(at both www.victorybriefsdaily.com and www.snfild.org). You can practice
flowing these rounds to get more experience and help you flow faster and more
effectively. To change it up, try flowing the news or music that you listen to.
Anything is able to help you practice flowing because all you’re learning to do is
write faster. Ultimately, there’s no precise way to teach anyone how to flow. It all
comes down to a lot of practice to so you feel comfortable with how you do it…
so keep practicing!
bracket similar to the NCAA tournament until the final 2 debaters compete for
the championship title. Think of it as pre-season vs. play-offs, with pre-season
being preliminary rounds and play-offs being the “outrounds.”
Be sure to bring pens, paper, timer, water and snacks for the tournament
to be ready for anything. At most tournaments, it is customary for students to
wear suits. At the very least, you should be wearing dress shoes, nice
slacks/skirt, and a nice shirt. This does not mean to go out and buy a new
wardrobe, but to identify a few items in your wardrobe that you would wear to a
nice dinner or ceremony.
Appendix A
Logical Fallacies
Appendix B
Sample Case
Because money shouldn’t determine of who lives and who dies, I stand
to affirm that resolved: a just government should provide health care
to its citizens.
For clarity,
Provide is to “supply or make available”1. Because provide does not
imply accept, a governmental system of health care can exist in
conjunction with private institutions.
Health care is defined2 as having the “adequate package of care should
[including] ‘physician services; inpatient and outpatient hospital services;
laboratory and roentgenogram services; prescription drugs; institutional
care for the elderly and the physically or mentally disabled, dental
services, early and periodic screenings, diagnosis, and treatment services,
family planning services, home health and personal care services, and
other medically necessary professional services.”
In contemporary society, many nations provide health care by reimbursing
and subsidizing private institutions that provide care.
As implied by the resolution, my value is a Just Government. It is
important to keep in mind that justice questions the morality of a situation, not
the economic feasibility or benefits. Slavery was one of the most economically
successfully systems in history, however, it was clearly in violation of justice
Individuals join society because they seek endowments that can only be
attained from a social context. These endowments allow them to function
autonomously in the public sphere. Michael Walzer explains why communities
are obligated in the provision of needs:
“Men and women come together because they literally cannot live apart.
But they can live together in many different ways. Their survival and then
1
Merriam Webster dictionary “Provide”
2
According to the Ad Hoc Committee, “Defining an adequate package of health care benefits” by Paul E. Kalb,
University of Pennsylvania law review. 1987.
their well-being require[s] a common effort: against the wrath of the gods,
the hostility of other people, [and] the indifference and malevolence of
nature (famine, flood, fire, and disease), the brief transit of a human life…
The idea is simply that we have come together, shaped a community, in
order to cope with difficulties and dangers that we could not cope with
alone. And so whenever we find ourselves confronted with difficulties and
dangers of that sort, we look for communal assistance. As the balance of
individual and collective capacity changes, so the kinds of assistance that
are looked for change, too.
Here, then, is a more precise account of the social contract: it [there] is an
agreement to redistribute the resources of the members in accordance
with some shared understanding of their needs, subject to ongoing
political determination in detail.”
Thus, the resolutional question becomes “to what extent is the community
obligated to provide for its members?”
I uphold the value criterion of Provision of Biological Needs.
Biological needs are human necessities demanded for physical survival, such as
the need for water, food, and shelter. Biological needs are a prerequisite to the
formation of any conception of justice. It would be ill-logical to seek higher
values, such as rights and civil liberties, when the basis for realizing these
values is not fulfilled. If medical aid were to be provided based upon anything
other than need, it would negate the purpose of medical aid itself. Medicine
would no longer serve the purpose of curing ills, but to cater to the upper class.
My first contention explains how health care is necessary for basic
human functioning and that when it is allocated by the free market, the free
market deprives certain individuals of health care.
Sub point A. The goal of medicine is to equalize and compensate for the
biological disadvantages between individuals. Norman Daniels3 explains the
specific need health care provides for:
“Course of life needs are those needs which people have through their
lives or at certain stages of life through which all must pass. Adventitious
needs are the things we need because of the particular contingent
projects on which we embark. Human course of life needs [these] would
include food, shelter, clothing, exercise, rest, companionship, a mate and
so on. Such needs are not them selves deficiencies, for example, when
3
“Health care needs and distributive justice” philosophy of public affairs vol 10, no 2. Spring 1981 p 146-179.
they are anticipated. But a deficiency with respect to them endangers the
normal functioning of the subject to be considered a member of natural
species.
Still, there is a clue here to a more plausible account [is that];
impairments of normal species functioning reduce the range of
opportunity we have within which to construct life plans and conceptions
of the good we have a reasonable expectation of finding satisfying or
happiness producing. Moreover, if persons have a higher order interest in
reserving the opportunity to revise their conceptions of the good through
time, they will have a pressing interest in maintaining normal species
functioning by establishing institutions- such as health care. Health care
are those things we need in order to medically maintain, restore, or
provide \ equivalents to normal species functioning.”
Health is a necessity not only to life itself, but to the higher functions of life. We
establish institutions of care because we recognize that individuals could not
attain medical care on their own. Thus, the affirmative definitionally provides
basic needs.
Sup point B explains how only public health care allows society at large
—and not just the upper class—to access human needs. An unregulated market
for health care fosters competition that takes advantage of the consumers. By
nature of the system, certain individuals will have access, and others who are
taken advantage of by the system will be denied. Gary McCuen4 explains:
“Purists would have us believe that markets always provide the best
possible economic outcomes. In this view, competition among suppliers to
sell their goods and maximize their profits ensure that we play the lowest
possible prices for the highest quality goods. But there is no market for
medical services in the traditional sense. Demand is determined not by
consumers but by physicians in their recommendations to patients. And
physicians are also the suppliers of their services. There are potential
conflicts of interest here. People do not shop around for the cheapest
surgeon, physician, or medicine. Even if they did, they are ill-equipped to
judge the quality of the medical care delivered.”
The impact is the inherent conflict of interest in a capitalist market place means
that the focus is not on good care or on universal provision.
4
“Health Care and Human values” Ideas in conflict Gary McCuen.
5
“Universal Access to health Care” Harvard Law Review, Vol 108, No 6, April 1995.
Appendix C
Sample Flow
Flowing Drills: These drills help you become better at flowing and taking
arguments.
1. Cases: If you have teammates, take turns reading off each other’s cases
while the other flows. This is a good chance to practice your vocal
inflection at the same time as flowing an actual case.
2. The News: Practice flowing the news. This can be done on your own and
since different anchors speak, quote sources, and cover many issues, it’s
similar to debate.
3. Music: Flowing music is a great way to practice because the lyrics can be
either very fast or slow. Start with songs you know (you’d be surprised at
how hard it is!)
Cross-Examination Drill: This requires several people. Have one person stand
up and read his or her case. When he or she is finished, have 2-4 other
people take turns asking questions in rapid fire. Limit the number of
questions allowed per person to about 4 to make sure you change topics
fast enough and force the questioners to come up with more effective
questions.
Rebuttals: These help you think faster on your feat and prepare for rebuttals.
1. Rebuttal Re-Gives: Take an old flow and focus on one of your rebuttal
speeches (NR, 1AR, 2AR or second half of the NC). Time yourself and give
the speech again. This is a chance to improve your word economy and
method of delivery. Try to give the same speech over again in 1-2
minutes less than it needs to be.
2. Rebuttal Re-Do’s: Take an old flow and focus on one of your rebuttal
speeches. Before giving the speech again, go through your responses and
revise your arguments. If you dropped a point, add a response. If you
made a bad response, change it. Make this speech better by making
better arguments. Give the speech over again and try to deliver it in a
shorter amount of time. This helps you recognize what arguments to
make and how to make them faster.